 Great, thanks so much Joe, and thanks to the Institute for the opportunity to I suppose give some brief reflections on the outcome of Lima from an Irish as well as from an EU perspective and also maybe to look ahead to 2015, which as Joe said is a milestone year or hopefully will be when we look back at it and a new regime on the climate side. Maybe just to outline, I'm sure some of you are probably wondering who is this kind of grey haired bearded guy sitting here kind of given that kind of the picture that was used to advertise this event kind of had a very sprightly young kind of person. This is about two weeks of negotiations in Lima last year, so grey hair and beard and I have been told by some of my staff that I shouldn't shave until we have a global agreement in December so they didn't say which year so I don't know kind of how long my beard will ultimately be, but listen I just kind of I suppose there's a very kind of a diverse but a very august kind of group here and I know there'll be as much value in listening to people's views and understanding what people think kind of has happened at Lima what actually people expect will happen over the coming kind of months and where the priorities lie so I do want to leave a fair amount of time and I won't have all the answers indeed kind of I rely kind of on experts for many of the detail kind of issues but certainly there are plenty of people who have answers or views around the table and around this room so I think kind of we will try and leave some slots at the end to have a dialogue if that's all right. I might start with some maybe some general feedback and on the outcome and I suppose to set the context for how Lima went I was there for as Joe said for the high level segment and I think by the time I got there maybe things were a little bit ropey or at the start but by the time I got there and we started the high level session there was a general willingness on the part of most parties to engage although kind of as always there's a laborious process and you end up kind of having procedural wranglings in the early days as to how best to proceed and you waste days but I think what struck me personally and having kind of attended now that's my fourth kind of cup is that for the first time I got a sense that parties were were willing to actually engage on substance they weren't just fighting about the process they were actually eager to argue their points to outline why they wanted a particular option or a piece of language and why they felt that they couldn't accept somebody else's so that was good in a way that kind of people were now kind of moving into a we need to find a solution here but equally kind of what happened was we had three full days of discussion on the co-chairs text for the ADP kind of decision the Lima kind of call to action and that text had originally been circulated as a six page document by the time we finished the three days of the initial discussion it was actually a 72 page document and kind of that's I suppose kind of part of the process but it equally kind of highlighted people that time was running out and decisions need to be taken but the fact that people were kind of saying we like this but we don't like that it kind of it felt that there was a slightly different dynamic in the room I don't think we'll ever kind of come to a stage where all 193 countries will say this is great we all agree on this but I think there was a kind of a certain kind of within certain sectors and certain kind of blocks certainly a bit more of a proactive kind of feel and I think that kind of what we have at the end of the call for climate action is an interesting kind of document it's kind of it does I suppose it does present a compromise view across the range of desires and wishes but it also outlines particularly some key kind of details on the process and the elements of what we do need to do during the early part of 2013 and indeed how we're going to get ultimately to Paris at the end of November and early December it is I suppose the decision itself is a mix of the bottom-up approach where kind of we have these INDCs and these intended nationally determined contributions which would be I suppose nationally proposed but then having some form of collective assessment or analysis or indeed consideration to to try and kind of balance I suppose to to compare the apples and oranges that are presented in a way that can assess are we collectively doing enough or not to to mitigate and to turn the tide on the the climate kind of overheating but I think equally what we've come away with and I think the the coverage and indeed kind of use of various parties in the media we still flag that there's a huge number of kind of key issues that need to be addressed in terms of the legal status of the agreement itself and obviously the EU and and some of the more progressive countries are looking for a legally binding document that actually has I suppose full legal force whereas other countries say the US and maybe Australia we'll be looking at more looser agreements that you would have voluntary elements that you could kind of deal with that in the US case wouldn't require them going to the Senate to basically get a legal resolution then you have issues around the scale of the of the peer review itself how much kind of countries are willing to offer up their their targets or their draft targets as kind of as fodder for countries to pick apart and saying are you doing enough are you not doing enough and this is maybe where the developing countries like China like India indeed like kind of Russia and some of the larger kind of ones would be concerned that they're ceding some of their their national sovereignty and also I suppose linked to the whole issue of peer review is how you deal with the issue of common accounting and the fact that if you are kind of bringing so many different elements of targets and objectives whether they're kind of base years or kind of a national kind of targets or kind of scale down how do you compare them and are we all working to the same so we understand that we're doing more we're doing less or that we can do more and that's an issue that I suppose is still to be resolved even in principle if we don't get into the detail by Paris and then the last issue may be more for developing countries was very much around the issue of the links between finance and the development and accepting targets and actions from themselves and obviously kind of not only is it that they will only do kind of some of their works if they feel that there is kind of sufficient support whether it's financial or technical or capacity-building support but equally that finance contributions from developed countries needs to be part of their national or their kind of international targets so there I suppose kind of why we do get an agreement out of out of Lima there are a huge number of issues that I suppose have been kicked down to further discussions and you know there's a huge amount of work that needs to be done kind of starting with the next session in February in Geneva I think you know time is always a kind of a essence in terms of trying to to get through all the work and one of the pieces of work that we only really had a chance to have one read through and it was annexed to the Lima decision was this elements of a draft negotiating text and a bit like the previous document that that grew from a six-page or 270 pages this draft kind of includes a whole list of options you know and many of them at the polar ends of the spectrum and you know if we had an extra week we may or may not have had a chance to resolve them but I think even getting an agreed decision and deferring some of those issues but recognising that this document is at least a useful starting point if it's accepted by all parties in February to move ahead and start working out what will actually be in this final agreement at the end of the year and that actually kind of is I suppose a major task and the proof will be in the pudding as to whether that work begins in earnest or whether we go back to procedural wrangling for the first few days of the Geneva conference I think there's general kind of views and certainly the EU and Minister of Rights and myself we were very very impressed with the Lima the co-president himself minister for the environment Manuel Pulgar Vidao who kind of has a I suppose a very personal interest in it and that he was an he is an environmental lawyer he actually attended the the Rio conference back in 1992 as an NGO so he's been involved for 20 odd years in kind of in kind of in different aspects of the environment and you could see from his engagement that number one he was very committed to a decision but number two he understood a lot of the issues and it was nice to I suppose to see the difference from the previous cop presidency where or presidencies where you might have had maybe more national or particular interests that were overriding kind of consensus decision and I think that certainly in the in the final final day and hours of the of the conference his role was critical in bringing some of the parties together and finding a compromise equally the work by the two co-chairs it was the EU Commission person Artur Rungermetze and the Trinidad and Tobago kind of represented from Gulak Kishan Kumar Singh they were finishing their this was their last event and they'd been guiding this process for 18 months and you know they kind of piloted very choppy waters and kind of tough days particularly in the early kind of a part of both the bond session back in June and indeed the first week here but they came out with a very good kind of a conclusion and handed over there handed over the reins of the of the ADP for the final year to the American delegate now Daniel Rechneider a Rechneider and and the delegate from Algeria representing the Africa group whose name is Ahmed Jokaf. I haven't heard that one off yet but I'm sure we'll have to kind of address the co-chair kind of at future at future sessions that's a big job and I suppose the EU itself was quite was was kind of quite realistic and recognising that as cop presidency kind of there will be actually in France you know it's not appropriate for the EU to actually have the the co-chairing role in the run-up to the the conference but there's hope that you know given the precedent of both the the outgoing co-chairs and indeed the previous co-chairs who did a very good job they've been able to leave behind their national and maybe they're kind of their regional interests in the in the interest of a bring kind of all the parties together so the bar set pretty high for these two new co-chairs but we shall see how they how they get on and their first job will of course be in a few weeks time from the Irish delegation we kind of the department leads on the climate change and coordinates but we rely on a huge number of people around around the system from kind of both agencies and central departments so we had kind of colleagues from agriculture from the EPA from Irish aid and indeed from the Department of Finance who were actually on the ground in Lima and we had a huge number of others who were on hand to feedback comments and I suppose it's kind of a maybe just a chance for me to and the department to acknowledge the the great work and the commitment that is is given by all these agencies that offer up kind of two and a half weeks of their time plus all the preparation in terms of contributing their expertise to a fairly kind of tiring and laborious process oftentimes but I think it certainly has helped that building on the work we had during our EU presidency where we had some very kind of a central role in the negotiations and in some of the brokering of deals we've tried to maintain that and have kept kind of quite a few I suppose important coordinating roles both within the EU and indeed in some of the sidebar discussions as co-chairs and co-facilitators so I think that it's just maybe just take the opportunity to acknowledge that that great work and to make sure that they keep it up for the next 12 months or we'll all be left kind of holding kind of our hands and nothing in them and I think as well kind of you probably are aware that Minister White very ably deputized for for Minister Kelly who I think had more pressing domestic matters to manage during December but I I know from from talking to Minister White and indeed to a staff that he found it very very useful and it was particularly strategic in the context of his own department's work on their their green paper and energy which is obviously kind of being kind of advanced now and we're moving into the towards the white paper stage and I think you know not only from an energy perspective but he understanding the international context I think oftentimes on one of the values of having a kind of a climate brief is that you're not just kind of dealing with the national side or with the EU but you actually have the international context I think that's something that that Minister White will take to heart when he is kind of looking at his own kind of department's role not only within the climate side but looking at kind of the energy portfolio that he has so I think we'll kind of will certainly look to maintain that kind of that engagement and and building it in 2015 maybe just before I get into the detail just the mood leaving kind of Lima kind of where people happy where they're not happy it really depends on your perspective you a glass half full a glass half empty I think certainly the the signs of a successful kind of outcome to a conference is that nobody is happy entirely but I think from the maybe from the EU perspective I think that there was I suppose a sense that you know some progress was made not as much as we would have liked and with not as much detail as we would have liked but at the same time we did get a decision which was looking kind of highly unlikely in the maybe 18 hours to go before the the end of the of the of the conference and there's enough there for us to actually build on the work that needs to happen now in the in the early part of 2015 but fully kind of recognize that you know you're looking at kind of other aspects that that didn't really deliver kind of to the full extent and I think that kind of you know people can all point to three or four things that they would like to see either in the in the process or on the on the worksheet for for early 2015 maybe kind of I don't know whether it's kind of one outcome from the from the conference and the and the decision and you can look at it as a good or bad kind of outcome is that Lima with all its kind of momentum so you had kind of the UN Secretary General Summit you had the UN US-China Conference and Dayton in November you had the EU's 2030 kind of headline decisions and with I suppose a very kind of experienced and a very proactive co-president we still barely got over the line and I think people were going back with maybe a heightened realism about what is going to be achieved in Paris and and what can be achieved in Paris and I think it does pose quite a few very tricky questions which I don't have the answers to and indeed kind of I'm sure there'll be kind of part of the debate between now and December is that really kind of what do we actually expect out of Paris do we do we want or do we kind of would we be happier with a weak deal that all parties sign up to or a strong deal that some parties reject and therefore stay out of the process how do we deal with the issues and the likely the very likely shortfall between what parties are prepared to actually contribute as their as their target towards kind of a global greenhouse gas reductions and what we know from the science is actually needed how do we deal with that and then the other challenge is given that we are looking to agree a decision in 2015 that will only have legal effect from 2020 what are the risks of locking in low-ambition now kind of till 2025 or 2030 and I suppose these are all issues that we're aware of and indeed will kind of probably further emerge during the year but I think you know at a national and either the new level these are kind of our issues that are likely to come back to the fore kind of both at ministeria as well as official level and as I said you know people may have views you're kind of around the table here and maybe kind of that welcome any kind of views and those I think kind of maybe looking at I have talked about the EU perspective and I mentioned to Joe and and to Tom before that it was the first time I was actually at a cop where the EU seriously considered walking away from a decision and saying we're not going to accept this there was I suppose the EU is traditionally seen as the the party that kind of goes out there and says we can do whatever and pushes everybody and yet concedes on a number of key issues and I suppose we were getting to a point where there was a risk that the decision text we've come back with from Lima would actually be so restrictive or so kind of or so weak that in fact would be better off having no decision from Lima and actually kind of pushing ahead rather than locking yourselves into something and maybe just to give you an example one of the issues that was potentially on the table was that parties would put forward their proposed INDCs between June and you know towards the end of the year but we wouldn't have any analysis or kind of discussion on them until 2016 which would mean would be signing up to an agreement in Paris without any chance to actually kind of articulate and have a rational discussion on how we account for them how we kind of assess them and that was a red line to the EU and kind of a we gave very strong instructions to both our lead negotiators and indeed to to Commissioner Kenyette that you know that was something that we just could not count on from an environmental as well as from a from a policy perspective and I think the other I suppose big issue was I think looking at kind of you know what level of detail and what would be kind of included or not at the end of the day I think as I said we can work with with the decision we have but you know there are huge number of risks throughout the the process and throughout kind of all these milestones for parties if they don't want to step up and don't step up quick enough you know we would be left kind of scrambling towards the end and you know more than once during the conference people talked about another Copenhagen and another kind of another kind of so can we learn the lessons can we kind of at least try and front load what we're kind of doing in terms of other blocks and maybe kind of I'm sure you probably kind of seen different media coverage and indeed kind of different reports back from from different areas on the China and the US obviously they're huge players and will be the kind of the key players in kind of any final decision some of the the good feeling that they had from their November Dayton I think was dampened and you know I'm not saying that they kind of actively kind of retrenched themselves but I think that you know they kind of they realized that what they thought was a great thing for themselves people started to pick holes and ask questions and they didn't really have the answers but the fact that they're still at the table and I suppose they're still signaled that this is an important issue nationally as well as internationally for them is an important kind of consideration South Africa and Brazil I suppose as part of the the basic group you know they were I think there's a sense they're a bit more cooperative than previously and perhaps that was partly because Brazil had the continental link and didn't want to be kind of overly scupering their their Peruvian hosts but equally I think they were looking at solutions and the Brazilian concept of this concentric circles of people moving moving into the circle and committing to more as their resources and capacity allows and indeed South Africa is looking to broker deals you know I think that was actually a strong signal and maybe there's a little bit of a broken link between the basic countries so Indian China are kind of a bit more kind of isolated where South Africa and Brazil are kind of there was no statements that I heard that actually included kind of basic statements so it was just a interesting geopolitical kind of observation to make one group that did actually come to the fore was this group called the like-minded group now if anybody can actually kind of put a number or kind of list every single country that tends to hop in and out of the group they'll be doing very well they can range from between 24 and 40 45 countries but they're generally countries developing developing countries that would be very much protective of the firewall very much kind of pushing for developed countries to take kind of a huge amount of action and commit significant resources before developing countries can be expected to to take action and they certainly flex their muscles they used the g77 discord and I suppose the lack of coordination to maybe fill that gap so sometimes you'd have China in there sometimes you'd have India and you know but they wouldn't obviously list that they've stopped listing who the countries are so it's even it's even more difficult to work out who they're speaking on behalf of but Malaysia is actually their spokesman at the moment and he's a very seasoned political kind of and indeed kind of a diplomatic campaigner and he was he was ruining the fact that he was missing his flight in the last hours to a very kind of expensive trip to Machu Pichu and he was sitting in the conference room kind of looking for a solution but telling everyone how much he was missing kind of his fun times but he was willing to do it for the sake of the planet but actually I think one of the things that might have kind of a slightly irked and a number of other developing countries but they tried to take a lot of the credit both from the top presidency and indeed from the likes of Aeosis and the LDCs about what they were delivering and what they were leveraging from developed countries now as to what that kind of means as we move into 2015 but just I think one of his final statements was that it was great that this Lima decision finally brought all the developing countries back into the one-fold now kind of I think that was more wishful thinking from his part but it's just a signal that they see this as kind of safety in numbers keep everybody kind of keep the divide between developed and developing countries because I think as we get closer to Paris there's a recognition that the least developed countries certainly Aeosis the associate of Latin American states there'll be a block that will be emerging from the developing countries they've been looking for a deal and the EU will obviously be kind of trying to I suppose further further develop those relations so that we don't have this very clear developed versus developing country fight when it comes to Paris and then just at the last group I suppose Africa kind of the LDCs were very much to the fore very strong I suppose an early action again highlighting the kind of the one and a half degree goal rather than the two degree goal climate finance was a huge issue and also I think you know I think there's a huge impetus there and a huge requirement for you to look very very closely at what we can do to assist them because as most you know most of Aeosis members and the LDCs are at the cold face and they're actually feeling the heat of climate change and the impacts right now and you know kind of I suppose that there's a there's a moral onus as well as a political onus on us to look at how we can assist them in also framing kind of an agreement that actually has has not only legally binding force but actually has a clear effect in mitigating and adapting to climate change I don't know whether we want to go into kind of a huge amount of the detail on on the decisions itself but I think that there was I suppose a few issues that I might just highlight and we can go into if people kind of want to go into the detail I have I have some kind of have the decision here and we can kind of we can parse the the language but I think a few things just in terms of the compromises there was a reference in the last hours kind of inserted about adaptation and trying to actually put the balance most of the targets that were being kind of I suppose described as national kind of INDCs was very much on the mitigation side and I think recognizing the key pressures that the developing countries were feeling that they wanted to adaptation listed as a key consideration so that when you're putting forward your INDC it doesn't isn't solely about or doesn't have to be solely about reducing the amount of your emissions but can be a combination of reducing your emissions but also kind of taking steps and investing to actually mitigate to to adapt to kind of what are kind of like the impacts of climate change in the future years and that was actually I think something that we recognize the question is how it'll actually kind of be accounted for and that's maybe the back to the issue of the having the MRV and accounting rules there was also a kind of a clear push from AOSIS to look at loss and damage and to give a reference now it's actually included in the preambular kind of paragraphs to the decision and is very much in the context of the Warsaw International Mechanism so you know a number of countries were very eager to kind of to tie in loss and damage which you know basically means compensation for for for kind of impacts of climate change into the actual new agreement but it was its reference in the decision but very much so in the context of the work that's already there the structures that are in place and then maybe the most significant concession that was secured by developing countries and a few others was a reference the explicit reference to this life of phrase common but differentiated principles and respective capabilities the CBD or RC has been a principle of the convention from from back in the day and the fact that we actually kind of cited it as a particular element within albeit the preambular kind of a piece of the of the of the decision it's actually a significant that this pretty much kind of recognizes that countries have different responsibilities and therefore need to take different steps but how it's interpreted is is that there's a firewall so you go back to 1992 and you say well there's so many countries who are developed a small number whatever it is 47 48 and then the rest of them are all developing countries and they're never never the twain shall meet the difficulty is 20 22 25 years ago you could argue that China and Brazil and you know a lot of countries were kind of certainly in that state but now they're going to their global kind of economic powerhouses and more importantly their global emitters and how do you actually kind of get there kind of their mindset to change and how kind of we reflected in the in the decision was we actually use some language that had been agreed previously by China and the US which probably represent the the polls of the spectrum in terms of what they're looking for and the the qualifying language we used was referencing CBD or a kind of RC but in light of different national circumstances and I think from a purely legal perspective there is a sense and you can argue this kind of a in court or whatever but kind of a politically there's a sense that actually allows for I suppose a more nuanced approach to maybe have countries kind of saying well you know as things change maybe we need to change so and this whole issue of differentiation so that was a concession that was kind of given in the final hours and you know I know some parties like the US and Australia felt it was a concession that was given far too soon but kind of in terms of actually getting a decision the issue of CBD or an RC was going to be on the table anyway it's I don't think it's going to make a huge difference whether it's it's cited in decision or whether it's kind of used and cited from the principles of the convention itself and just one kind of one last thing about the the kind of what the EU was looking for and what it might might not have got there was a paragraph is paragraph 14 of the decision and it talks about this upfront information what information will countries actually give when they're presenting their IDC INDCs and a little bit more detail was actually inserted in that which was helpful from from an EU perspective it basically allows for a longer list of items that needs to be I suppose considered and and added to as you're kind of producing your INDC and there was a there was an inclusion of one word called quantifiable which wasn't there before and which I think would help to make the aggregate kind of accounting a little bit easier because you're going to put a figure at the end of it or at least be able to kind of turn a principle into what this might mean but one of the things that did drop from the final decision was we had planned or we had hoped in the middle of the year that there'd be a process whether we call it a meeting or whether we call it just one of the part of the sessions we had where we would have a dialogue with countries that have put forward their targets and allow other countries to say well why did you do that or kind of is that all you can do or what's that going to deliver that kind of dialogue which was supposed to be constructive dialogue it suddenly became non-invasive and you know kind of you know the most bland kind of descriptions you could you could imagine and you know the fact that we'd have a session where you wouldn't be kind of allowed to ask any hard questions kind of we said well at least we have a session and then they decided that they were going to move that to 2016 so we're going to have this discussion to 2016 and the EU decided that you know that was a step too far and we'd rather actually remove any reference to this this session because in reality we all know that as soon as people put them out there that the analysis that will be done and there will be a dialogue whether it's in a formal session or whether it's just bilaterals so we didn't want to have any restrictions on what kind of a could be discussed or how it could be discussed during 2016 itself and the other kind of maybe slight nuance was that there was going to be from the secretariat what they kind of called a technical paper that was just compiling them so basically all these INDCs you basically put them all into one document and circulated everybody but that has now been upgraded to a synthesis report on the aggregate effects of the INDCs so a little bit more analysis and an attempt to to try and kind of convert the apples and oranges into collective fruit so to speak now the danger is that that actually document is not due until November which leaves it very very late but they'll be as I said there'll be a lot of dialogue between kind of I suppose June and November anyway so I suspect that you know kind of that that report will just enhance the discussion we're already having in throughout the year and in terms of and before I kind of just I suppose leave and I'm conscious I want to leave as much time as possible there were obviously a huge amount of other things that were happening kind of these cops kind of they tend to focus on the the highly political issues but there was a significant amount of work done in relation to presentation of what we called kind of them are multilateral assessments so countries actually including the EU and a number of member states presented to the cop and of what they're doing in terms of their biennial reporting what what measures are taking and policies they're they're delivering and that was actually I suppose a very useful exercise to demonstrate to other countries that M or V is actually useful that you can actually report you can measure you can verify and then you can kind of I suppose argue kind of why your policies are working or not and Ireland actually just like Ireland will be actually making its presentation at the the forthcoming June session in Milan under the SPI kind of heading there was also obviously a recognition of the science and the fifth assessment report and that was very much kind of I suppose fully recognized and included in a lot of the discussions so and indeed through the structured expert dialogue which which dealt with the issues but I think as we get closer and closer to Paris I think people are arguing less about the science and more about what's practical and what's reasonable and affordable which I suppose is one is one kind of a facet to the to the battle that kind of we might be kind of a at least kind of able to take a bit of a breather from as long as we don't lose sight of what are the ultimate scientific and and requirements to deliver on the and the actions and obviously finance is another issue there was quite a few acknowledgments of the the kind of contributions pledged to the Green Climate Fund and in the end actually I think just over 10.2 billion US dollars was was pledged both in advance of enduring the conference itself as Minister White kind of indicated in his address the plenary Ireland along with a number of other countries were unable to actually kind of contribute or make their pledge at the conference itself but kind of in terms of a future climate finance we we do expect to be able to have matched our fast-art finance kind of from from previous years and indeed in 2013 I think we kind of we spent about 34 million in 100% generally adaptation grants to least developed countries and our program countries we hope to match that in 2014 and indeed kind of the government not only kind of Minister quiet and myself but indeed the entire government is looking at how to actually I suppose look at all options for for mobilizing and scaling up climate finance including to the GCF itself a kind of I've other bits and pieces there but I kind of we can I'm sure we can catch those in in our discussion I suppose just a flag where we go next in milestones most of you are probably aware of the the key steps there are kind of on the 8th to the 13th of February there's a week-long session focused solely on the ADP and the negotiations for the 2015 agreement in Geneva we have our annual summer jaunt to to bond where we kind of spent kind of two weeks and hopefully we'll kind of we'll get beyond kind of procedural kind of fights and get stuck into the clear work that's needed and then kind of we have the cop kind of starting in the 20 the 30th of November in Paris I think based in Le Bourget at the airport I had actually some initial discussions with the French delegation at at Lima and indeed kind of met further with with the ambassador since I came back here they're obviously very eager to mobilize they are reluctant to signal any kind of additional sessions because as soon as you signal an additional session nobody does any work at the previous sessions so I think that they they do intend to try and kind of as far as possible keep to those three weeks those through those those three sessions but they also recognize that kind of as needs must they want to try and build momentum and I think certainly learning from this year's event where you had Ban Ki-moon kind of bringing in heads of state I wouldn't be surprised if you know with the year that's in it we have another kind of similar model baby maybe based around the SDG kind of a culmination of the process at the end of September in New York so there's a huge amount of work to be done but hopefully that gives you a flavor from the the ground forces so to speak but happy to take any questions but equally I'd be very interested to hear views from from yourselves as to what was the perspective